With the voting season coming soon, and the fact I have nothing better to do being a constant, the question of wither or not voting should be compulsory, free choice, or just to fuck it completely and let the strongest lead us all until someone stronger comes along, comes to mind. Of course, each comes with its own pros and cons, but then there never is a totally perfect way of doing things. But what matters is that we look at each of them, picking our sides, then starting a revolution...err...movement towards supporting your side. I'll show you the side you might want to join; I'll let it up to you on how to show your support.
First up on the block is our current way of voting for our leaders: completely free for us to choose to vote or not. Now, while it seems to have worked well over the years, past 200 and so years, when you look back on the whole thing, this system has produced some pretty bad results. Never mind our recent years, but think Regan, Carter, and the other presidents that didn't do shit or wrecked things...all of them came to be because the people voted for them.
"Well, yeah," you say, "that's how it works. It's just a popularity contest, after all." I could agree with you on that point, but the only reason we vote for our said candidate is because they are aligned with our choice party. Face it: if you belong to your party and you're going to vote, you're going to vote party, even if you disagree with that candidate.
"True," you speak up again, "but, if I really disagree with the person, then I just won't vote." Ah, there, there is the problem with free choice voting. The fact you can decline your right to vote makes the whole system unbalanced, as certain groups of people tend to vote more then others. While I'm not about to go out and research who votes more, I just want you look to the past eight years and tell me which groups tend to vote more.
Now, while this doesn't seem to be a major problem, you forgetting one thing: your own
thoughts. See, while I can't totally say it's wrong not to vote if you don't care about who wins or not, or if you truly don't like any of the candidates, I will say it is wrong for somebody not to vote if they believe that one of the candidates is a good choice. Not only are you denying yourself your own freedoms, but any complaints coming out of your mouth for an opposing administration makes you a hypocrite. See, people who voted have the right to complain, after all, they didn't vote for the guy. But you, Mister and Misses Votenot, shame on you. For all you know, you could've tilled the vote, but you had to be lazy.
This also brings up the issue of the voting age. At the beginning of high school, I could have sure damned well told you that I didn't want Bush, as did most of the people I went to high school with (it also had a little something to do with the rumors of a draft, but for the most part, we really didn't want the man). Now, right there, that could have been a lot of votes for Kerry. In fact, Kerry would've won if high school students were allowed to vote. You may not agree with me, but a lot of them have pretty strong opinions, and at times, seem more capable of choosing a president more rationally then any other citizen, which, may I remind you, students are also citizens.
So, after bashing the hell out of our current system, what one good thing could I say about? Well, I suppose it does allow a little more freedom then the other two systems would, but, as you might soon see, that might not matter.
Compulsory voting in the land of the free...sounds like an oxymoron, right? Well, maybe, maybe not. See, I can break down the types of voters down into three groups: the people who vote anyway, the people who have a person in mind to vote for but just don't find the time or are lazy, or the group who just really doesn't care. These voters should have a different view of compulsory voting, but doesn't mean they should hate having to vote.
For the first group, it doesn't really matter if they are forced to vote or not. They would vote even if they didn't have to, so being forced to doesn't really change anything for them. There really isn't anything here to elaborate on, so on to the next group.
The next group is comprised of the people who either want to vote but can't because of time constraints or won't vote because they're lazy. The time constraints can be anything from work to school to anything really. This can easily be solved with making voting a national holiday, like Christmas. Of course, the nation shouldn't stop just because it's a national holiday, but the employer should expect tardiness if they don't close. But what if you're already stuck at work or something like that? Well, we have door-to-door carolers, why not door-to-door poll workers? I could see that catching on. Same principal applies to the lazy, or the bedridden. Just send a poll worker to their house and have them vote on the spot.
Now we have the group that doesn't care. This is sort of like the first group in that it shouldn't really matter if you vote. You see, they don't care to begin with, so for them the most it'll be is a trite little annoyance to actually move their arm and hit one of the little boxes with a name next to it. Done, in a little under five seconds, and then back to the uncaring.
"Wait," you yell, "I don't believe in voting!" What the hell is wrong with you? You believe in mountains, don't you? If don't vote because you believe it doesn't work, then you're perfect for the corporate world. Your superior is the richest guy there, even if he doesn't know what he's doing. You may never see him your entire life, but he's pulling the strings. Your kind starts running the nation, that's how we'll end up. You'll just start listening to somebody because, while what they say may make no sense, it's just easier to comply then to complain. Our nation would just become one giant job...and nobody likes their job unless their on top. So vote, and be glad to know you might have a hand on electing a guy who make might sense of things.
So, really, compulsory voting doesn't restrict much in the way of freedoms. It's not like people are telling you must vote for this one guy, but rather we're telling you have to vote for somebody, preferably the person you want.
The last type of voting isn't so much voting as it is a social Darwinist dream. Sort of. Letting whoever is in power stay in power might work in some places, but how did that one person get into power? Revolution, that's how, the loss of life. If we in America let the strong become president by means of revolution, then the strong has to stay in power by staying strong, that's is, making sure their army will be strong enough to repel counterrevolutions. And with our nation filled with many ambitious people, that's going to cause a lot of death.
Yet, in America, we see power more as money then anything, so perhaps it would be run by the richest guy...that is, Bill Gates. Bad idea here, too, because, the rich become rich though corporations and all they know is how to make money for themselves. They'll run the nation as a giant corporation focused on making money while you make minimum wage or less. Or worse, no jobs because they're all overseas. With no jobs, we'll get pissed, lead a revolution, kill people, and because it was a civil revolution, that is, a revolution led against people in our own county, I have the feeling that paranoia and the constant fear that somebody will lead a forceful change will be ever present, leading us back to the first model.
So, voting is a good idea to keep around, unless somehow we get along without leaders or we become a sort of hive mind. The odds of that, of course, aren't very high. I'm going to say leadership though strength alone isn't going to happen anytime soon.
In the long about way of saying it, it would seem compulsory voting is a good idea, or at the very least, it's a logical idea. I suppose people wouldn't like their freedoms shoved down their throats, but, really, don't some people need to?
I'm not completely against compulsory voting, but only if they make "none of the above" an option, and if "none of the above" wins, they have to start over.
Random democracy all the way.
You feed the names of everybody on the country into a computer and then pick one at random to be king for a year.
The have carte blanch to do absolutely anything but if they try to abdicate they get shot.
SRSLY - this would be even funnier than the current state of affairs. I shit you not.
I would prefer an old fashoined fight. Winner gets to be in charge until someone stronger kicks their ass.
Quote from: LMNO on March 18, 2008, 01:25:38 PMI'm not completely against compulsory voting, but only if they make "none of the above" an option, and if "none of the above" wins, they have to start over fight to the death.
fixt.
Quote from: triple zero on March 18, 2008, 02:49:20 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 18, 2008, 01:25:38 PMI'm not completely against compulsory voting, but only if they make "none of the above" an option, and if "none of the above" wins, they have to start over fight to the death.
fixt.
Ok, count me in.
Interesting thoughts, K-Scar. I sense that your heart is in the right place, but I disagree with the methodology.
First off, what would you propose be the penalty for excersizing your right to vote? What if I just straight-up refuse to participate in the system? Should I get a fine? That sounds kind of bum.
Your proposition also relies on creating a structure to facilitate everyone voting. Door to door polls, for example. The thing is, I guarentee that those pollsters belong to a political party, and I bet the people they approach are going to vote like the poll-taker suggests. You can make rules that they can't talk about their political opinions --- but hey, they made rules that you can't rig an election and we saw how well THAT worked. More humans in the process = more human errors.
Third - I feel that the majority of Americans are quite uninformed about the candidates past the really loud rhetoric. Ask the average pedestrian what the difference is between Obama and Hillary, and I bet you five bucks he'll ONLY mention race, gender, experience, or the magical but meaningless word "change". Mandatory voting isn't going to change this, it's just going to give a voice to droves of people that don't know what they're talking about. It encourages politicians to appeal to the least common denominator, and to base their campaigns on rhetoric rather than policy. (Tangent: What great power that word "Change" holds. It's a mirror which reflects whatever the listener wants to hear.)
"How right politicians are to look upon their constituents as cattle! Anyone who has any experience of dealing with any class as such knows the futility of appealing to intelligence, indeed to any other qualities than those of brutes." -Crowley, Magick Without Tears
so yeah, I think you've got some good points. But I don't think there's a way to implement this without introducing even worse problems into the already gross system.
I think a much better way to get the public to vote would be to make an effort to bring intelligent political discourse into public awareness. News coverage of politics needs to stop focusing on soundbites and giving power to mudslinging. People with unique viewpoints need to be given a voice, not left to shout themselves blue on the fringe.
I'm reminded of the Simpsons' Halloween episode where the two aliens possess Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Marge, hip to the two-man-con says, "Well I'm going to vote third party." Both aliens laugh, "Fine! Be our guest! Go ahead and throw your vote away!"
Quote"How right politicians are to look upon their constituents as cattle! Anyone who has any experience of dealing with any class as such knows the futility of appealing to intelligence, indeed to any other qualities than those of brutes." -Crowley, Magick Without Tears
This is my whole problem with democracy in general - the misguided notion that the majority are fit to make any kind of decision.
The majority are fucking idiots and, as such, are incapable of even actually making a decision. 'Democracy' in practice= millions of fucking retards voting exactly how they were told to vote.
Democracy is an illusion - it wouldn't work even if it ever occured. Please stop trying to pretend it ever could.
also:
I think LMNO said it really adroitly
(and he can feel free to correct me)
My biggest complaint with Democracy is that whenever you've got a big group of people trying to decide on something, my opinion is almost always in the minority.
SRSLY - democracy is a prehistoric failfest - get over it.
Also there is no viable alternative - it's not the system thats the problem its the people :lulz:
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 18, 2008, 04:08:38 PM
SRSLY - democracy is a prehistoric failfest - get over it.
Also there is no viable alternative - it's not the system thats the problem its the people :lulz:
Chicken and the egg.
Democracy will always be open to massive problems. Counting votes will never actually be know unless every single one of us counts the votes ourselves. You never going to be sure that candidate X actually got this amount of votes while candidate Z got this much, so Z actually won, not X. Democracy such as ours doesn't really work on the wide-scale. It could work on a much smaller scale, but in a country such as ours, we can never have 100% faith in the fairness of the system.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on March 18, 2008, 03:52:34 PM
also:
I think LMNO said it really adroitly
(and he can feel free to correct me)
My biggest complaint with Democracy is that whenever you've got a big group of people trying to decide on something, my opinion is almost always in the minority.
I think Twain also voiced something like this, but I can't remember it exactly.
I dunno, if works of fiction like the current "John Adams" series on HBO is to be believed (yeah, I know), there was some sort of honest effort on the behalf of the gentlemen farmers to try and put some real thought into the minority question.
Which is why they made a republic, not a democracy.
Also, I think HBO added a little spin, like Jefferson calling slavery "an abomination".
Except when he's got an urge for Brown Sugar, of course.
Quote from: LMNO on March 20, 2008, 11:43:30 AM
Which is why they made a republic, not a democracy.
Also, I think HBO added a little spin, like Jefferson calling slavery "an abomination".
Except when he's got an urge for Brown Sugar, of course.
Yeah but that's not slavery... it's BDSM :lulz:
Quote from: Jenne on March 19, 2008, 07:50:37 PM
I dunno, if works of fiction like the current "John Adams" series on HBO is to be believed (yeah, I know), there was some sort of honest effort on the behalf of the gentlemen farmers to try and put some real thought into the minority question.
The federalist papers back this up. Jefferson (I think it was Jefferson, anyway, or maybe Adams) was quite explicit about the dangers of a tyranny by th majority being just as bad as a tyranny by the minority.
The solution was to give the government (ie, the majority) limits on what it could do to the public (which includes the minority.) Majority rule, minority rights, that kind of thing. Which is why no matter how many of you disagree with that moron down the street you can't (successfully) petition the government to take away his printing press.
This is all in theory, of course. In practice the US has plenty of examples in its history where the majority got carried away.
Quote from: LMNO on March 20, 2008, 11:43:30 AM
Which is why they made a republic, not a democracy.
Also, I think HBO added a little spin, like Jefferson calling slavery "an abomination".
Except when he's got an urge for Brown Sugar, of course.
Yeah, I said as much when I saw that scene, too.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on March 21, 2008, 01:02:34 AM
Quote from: Jenne on March 19, 2008, 07:50:37 PM
I dunno, if works of fiction like the current "John Adams" series on HBO is to be believed (yeah, I know), there was some sort of honest effort on the behalf of the gentlemen farmers to try and put some real thought into the minority question.
The federalist papers back this up. Jefferson (I think it was Jefferson, anyway, or maybe Adams) was quite explicit about the dangers of a tyranny by th majority being just as bad as a tyranny by the minority.
The solution was to give the government (ie, the majority) limits on what it could do to the public (which includes the minority.) Majority rule, minority rights, that kind of thing. Which is why no matter how many of you disagree with that moron down the street you can't (successfully) petition the government to take away his printing press.
This is all in theory, of course. In practice the US has plenty of examples in its history where the majority got carried away.
Ah yes, The Federalist Papers. I remember those now. Don't remember exactly what they said--I know they were the platform for a lot of the structural governmental changes and philosophies Jefferson and his cronies were on about in the early days of the Republic.
So how the hell did the Conservative Republicans get to claim dibs on them, anyway?
Quote from: LMNO on March 21, 2008, 01:26:17 PM
So how the hell did the Conservative Republicans get to claim dibs on them, anyway?
Well, Conservative Republicans do hold much more closely with the Federalist ideals than Democrats do (libertarians tend to be the closest, but they have their own set of issues).
Here's the thing, Rebublicans cover a large array of political views, esp since the Regan revolution. Currently the Republican party is made up of several smaller groups... loosely:
Fiscal Conservatives
Government Conservatives
Social Conservatives/Religious Right
NeoCons (Actually Liberal, not Conservative... go figure)
Many people fall into two of those groups, but the government conservatives are the ones that hold most closely to the federalist ideals. When you hear talk of "States Rights" or "small government" that's the Federalists. The Social conservatives, may sometimes be Federalists, but often only use the idea of Federalism to their own advantage (ala Roe v Wade). NeoCons aren't conservatives at all, as they have grown the government, grown spending and fubar'd the national debt, while invading other countries... none of which is conservatives and all of which would be considered Progressive or Liberal if not for their weird Social Conservative bent.
Of course, since the Civil War the whole issue has been moot anyway. When the founding fathers built the Republic, it was with the understanding that the States were in a voluntary association. The Civil War changed that from a voluntary association to association at gunpoint. Since then, the American people can't really be considered Free, since the federal government holds every state citizen to a contract signed by our great-great-great grandfathers. The concept of Federalism was further busted when FDR rescued the States from the Depression with the New Deal.
In the US today, most of our government is progressive or liberal compared to the original founders intent. Sometimes, in the heat of arguments on Abortion, Homosexuality etc its easy to miss... but our government (even Bush) if far more a Lefty than any of the Founders... or even Republicans from 100 years ago.
QuoteOf course, since the Civil War the whole issue has been moot anyway. When the founding fathers built the Republic, it was with the understanding that the States were in a voluntary association. The Civil War changed that from a voluntary association to association at gunpoint. Since then, the American people can't really be considered Free, since the federal government holds every state citizen to a contract signed by our great-great-great grandfathers. The concept of Federalism was further busted when FDR rescued the States from the Depression with the New Deal.
Looked at in one way, this is an incredibly consice and accurate description of American Political History.
Quote from: RatatoskIn the US today, most of our government is progressive or liberal compared to the original founders intent. Sometimes, in the heat of arguments on Abortion, Homosexuality etc its easy to miss... but our government (even Bush) if far more a Lefty than any of the Founders... or even Republicans from 100 years ago.
Yeah, this is what I would have said wiffout the history lesson, so major kudos to you.
One thing to always remember vis a vis our wondrous "Founding Fathers" is that, for all their vision of this then-Utopia-and-now-bureaucratic nightmare, they were prodigiously stuck within the frames of their own subcultural bugaboos. Especially when it came to slavery, classism and out and out have-and-have-not natures.
Their altruism, in other words, only went so far.